Flag amendment to be reviewed

Posted: Tuesday, March 28, 2000

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
with RICHARD WILLIAMSGlobe-News Staff Writer

Votes are near in the Senate on proposed amendments to the Constitution that could make desecrating the U.S. flag illegal and put limits on contributions to political campaigns. The Supreme Court has said both are forms of free speech protected by the Constitution's First Amendment.

Late today, the Senate takes up a measure offered by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., that would give Congress power to set reasonable limits on the amount of contributions that can be made to a candidate for federal office.

The Hatch proposal is likely to mirror the last flag-desecration vote in the Senate, in 1995, when supporters fell three short of the two-thirds majority needed to amend the Constitution.

Debate has been passionate on both sides of both issues, as opponents argued they seriously undermine the First Amendment's free speech rights.

Hatch's amendment comprises one sentence: "Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

John Boyd, chief justice of the U.S. 7th District Court of Appeals in Amarillo, said this morning, "The whole process (of campaign reform) is something that needs to be looked into," but he declined to comment specifically on either the flag desecration or campaign finance reform amendments because they could both potentially come before his court in some capacity later on.

"We in the court system have to administer law impartially, so all I can really say is whatever law the Senate or House passes in these or similar matters must be constitutional to be effective," Boyd said.

Potter County Republican chairman Bill Juett said the proposed amendments are "feel-good legislation. I have some problems with constitutional amendments where common sense and state law could do a better job. I love the flag, but it's my flag and how I treat it reflects on my patriotism and character. It doesn't need a constitutional amendment to protect its integrity."

As for campaign finance reform, Juett was also adamant. "Reform should not be a constitutional amendment. I think we can trivialize, water down, the Constitution with amendments that don't belong there."

Attorney Robert Forrester, former Potter County Democratic Party chairman, said the proposed flag amendment violates the First Amendment right of free speech.

"Once you begin infringing on free speech, you go down the slippery slope toward tyranny. I don't like to see someone desecrate the flag, but free speech isn't about what you like, it's about the unmolested exchange of ideas and views in a free society," he said.

Forrester said he agrees "something ought to be done about campaign reform. I don't believe a Constitutional amendment is the appropriate solution, but perhaps some form of public financing and shortening the campaign time would be in order.

"Right now, only the extremely wealthy or those who have extensive campaign contributors can afford to run for office. The only winners are the networks who charge millions for campaign advertisements.

"The system cries out for reform," Forrester said.

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., a leading critic of campaign finance limits, said the Hollings provision "crudely reaches in and rips the heart right out of the First Amendment."